Recent Songbirds (7) - advise sought.

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forum Rules
Rules: One new topic per day

FM Forums \| Nature & Wildlife \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 end

acjd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · Recent Songbirds (7) - advise sought.

Anybody got a suggestion following up on Herb's aperture and distance suggestion? How do I get maximum pixels on a songbird to print 16 x 24 without diffraction setting in? Is my line of reasoning off?

I'm not concerned with web images for song birds. Anything put on the web can be a major crop and you can still throw pixels away. Printing 8 x 11 1/2 means throwing pixels away. So you can use a smaller part of the sensor. Printing large means creating something from nothing, which is never good.

I would appreciate any ideas as I have no idea how to do it. I am trying to learn.

Nov 16, 2012 at 11:37 PM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · Recent Songbirds (7) - advise sought.

It would be easier for others to give advice if you included the EXIF data.

At those distances, I try never to have an aperture larger than f8.

e.g.:

2013 © Imagemaster

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV 400 mm f/11.0 1/160 sec 800 ISO -0.3 EV

Nov 16, 2012 at 11:57 PM

acjd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · Recent Songbirds (7) - advise sought.

Imagemaster wrote:
It would be easier for others to give advice if you included the EXIF data.

At those distances, I try never to have an aperture larger than f8.

Imagemaster,

Thank you. I started doing this a few weeks ago and someone else pointed that out as well. I use aperture and it appears to not keep the exif. I need to go figure that out.

The important info here is, for the most part, Canon 7D, 800mm w/25 mm extension tubes, iso 400, distance ~16 feet., F7.1 or F8.0.

Your picture is tack sharp and I can see in the bottom left corner it's out of focus. I am not going to use F11 or F16 on a 7D. The diffraction is obvious. With your 1D4 DLA starts at about F9 so you have about a 1 stop advantage .

Nov 17, 2012 at 12:12 AM

Larry Williams
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · Recent Songbirds (7) - advise sought.

IMHO when printing small birds very large, say 11x14, and the little birds fill the canvas, they look out of place. With that, I generally make the birds about 10% larger than their actual size and fill the large canvas with their environment.

I also print the tiny birds filling the frame with them, like warblers, hummers, or Cardinals on 5x7 canvas.
But, that's just me.

Larry

Nov 17, 2012 at 12:33 AM

acjd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · Recent Songbirds (7) - advise sought.

Larry Williams wrote:
IMHO when printing small birds very large, say 11x14, and the little birds fill the canvas, they look out of place. With that, I generally make the birds about 10% larger than their actual size and fill the large canvas with their environment.

I also print the tiny birds filling the frame with them, like warblers, hummers, or Cardinals on 5x7 canvas.
But, that's just me.

Larry

Larry, I appreciate your perspective on this. I got two cardinals and a hummer at 16 x 20 staring at me now. Granted, the hummer looks like an alien but you get used to it. She greets me everyday. I have always had large prints made. The only problem is you run out of wall space

Many, many years ago we decided it was far cheaper to put our own photographs on the wall than to buy paintings. It's also more satisfying.

Nov 17, 2012 at 12:49 AM

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · Recent Songbirds (7) - advise sought.

acjd wrote:
Your picture is tack sharp and I can see in the bottom left corner it's out of focus. I am not going to use F11 or F16 on a 7D. The diffraction is obvious. With your 1D4 DLA starts at about F9 so you have about a 1 stop advantage .

I could care less about diffraction. It is less obvious than having much of the bird out-of-focus due to shallow DOF.

I have no problem shooting my 7D at f11 or f16 and making 20x24 prints from those images.

Canon EOS 7D 320 mm f/11.0 1/250 sec 1600 ISO -0.3 EV

Nov 17, 2012 at 01:33 AM

acjd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · Recent Songbirds (7) - advise sought.

Imagemaster wrote:

I could care less about diffraction. It is less obvious than having much of the bird out-of-focus due to shallow DOF.

Agreed when the OOF portion is large, such in image 3. I put that up because of the pose. For #5, I don't agree. The OOF on the tail is not significant. In fact, it is what the eye naturally sees. My reference point on diffraction is here

Now this is comparing full frame. Here the pixels size is ~50% larger on the full frame. On a 7D, the effect would be greater. Regardless, diffraction is obvious. However, I do see and agree with your point if much of the bird is OOF.

Imagemaster wrote:

I have no problem shooting my 7D at f11 or f16 and making 20x24 prints from those images.

Sir, your hummer image is excellent, I love the slow motion on the water flow and the composition is classic rule of thirds. The vignetting effect on the edges enhances the attraction to the lighter focus on the bird. I know how difficult it is to get hummers sharp. Really well done.

Your DOF was a bit less than 1/2" and that is easy to see. With the plane of focus parallel to the sensor, that little guy is about all in focus except a bit on the end of the tail. Really well done. More impressive is the ISO. You've done a great job at noise suppression.

I can see pixelation in the lighter green areas that is not going to be very noticeable in a web image. I don't know how this translates to a 20 x 24 print but if you have blown this ISO 1600 image up to 20 x 24 and are happy with it, then I'm very impressed. Excellent work and you are the imagemaster

I'm impressed with your work and will try some higher ISOs with greater DOF to see how they work out. Maybe I'll try some 20 x 24 print side by side comparisons of the same images at F7.1 vs F16 to see if diffraction is noticeable at those dimensions. I suspect it will be but sometimes the proof is easy to see with a side by side comparison.

This doesn't solve my problem of number of pixels on the bird. I'm not sure how many pixels were in the images you make 20 x 24 but if they are full frame at 18 MP, then that would be ideal. I'm still not sure how to get that on a song bird.

Thank you very much Sir. Your username is well chosen.

Nov 17, 2012 at 07:15 AM

trailhiker
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #8 · Recent Songbirds (7) - advise sought.

Nice shots! Though I'm with Tim and the others, they're cropped just a bit too tight. You have to let them "breathe" a little. And I agree with you on not "photoshopping" out branches, twigs, etc. -- for the most part. I do it only on the rare occasion, preferring for the viewer to see the bird as I saw it, branches or no. And as you say, nature isn't neat and tidy...

Best Wishes,
Steve

Nov 17, 2012 at 08:26 AM

acjd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · Recent Songbirds (7) - advise sought.

trailhiker wrote:
Nice shots! Though I'm with Tim and the others, they're cropped just a bit too tight. You have to let them "breathe" a little. And I agree with you on not "photoshopping" out branches, twigs, etc. -- for the most part. I do it only on the rare occasion, preferring for the viewer to see the bird as I saw it, branches or no. And as you say, nature isn't neat and tidy...

Best Wishes,
Steve

Thank you Steve. Yes, I agree with the consensus about giving the birds more space. I've learned from that. As to photochopping out cluttered backgrounds, that is just fake. It's one thing to remove noise and sharpen the image. Its another thing to create something new that wasn't there. But I know some consider post processing as art and they can do what they please. I prefer nature to be nature and it is what it is.

Nov 17, 2012 at 09:28 AM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Nature & Wildlife \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end